Man shoots mother's surgeon, his mother, and himself

[Green_Lantern]

A man who became distraught as he was being briefed on his mother's condition by a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital pulled a gun and shot the doctor Thursday, then killed his mother and himself in her room at the world-famous medical center, police said. 

The doctor, who was wounded in the abdomen, was expected to survive. 

The gunman, 50-year-old Paul Warren Pardus, had been listening to the surgeon around midday when he "became emotionally distraught and reacted ... and was overwhelmed by the news of his mother's condition," Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III said. 

Pardus pulled a semiautomatic gun from his waistband and shot the doctor once, the commissioner said. The doctor, identified by colleagues as orthopedic surgeon David B. Cohen, collapsed outside the eighth-floor room where Pardus' 84-year-old mother, Jean Davis, was being treated. 


Harry Koffenberger, vice president of security, said the hospital uses handheld metal detectors to screen patients and visitors known to be high-risk. However, with 80 entrances and 80,000 visitors a week, it is not realistic to place metal detectors and guards everywhere. 


Pardus was from Arlington, Va., and had a handgun permit in that state, police said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39213367/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[izquierdista]

1. "not realistic"

Nevertheless, it will increase metal detector sales and security guard openings. Hats off to Paul for stimulating the economy!


for the cognitively impaired, :sarcasm:

[peacetalksforall]

2. The combination of mind and gun - the mind is more powerful than the gun. All the innocents, all

the innocents.

[msongs]

3. RKBA nt

[Callisto32]

39. Suggesting...what, exactly?

That RKBA somehow encompasses the right to assault and murder people? Balderdash.

[hlthe2b]

4. Emotional volatility and ready access to guns....

can only lead more to this. sigh...

[proteus_lives]

10. So let's take away people's rights. For "safety".

Sigh....

[Green_Lantern]

12. right to own a gun or right to carry a gun any where?

I support limiting the right to carry a gun any place you want.

[rrneck]

24. Where should guns not be carried? nt

[Glassunion]

25. I'm afraid you are mistaken.

This story was posted in this forum already and if you'll note the following...

It was illegal for this individual to carry a firearm in the hospital that the shooting occured in.
In fact it was illegal for this individual to carry a firearm in the entire state that the hospital resides in.
It was also illegal for this individual to be in possesion of a firearm let alone carry one in the state that the hospital is in.

So... There were already limits on this individual to be able to carry a gun anywhere he wanted. Should we make it double-illegal?

[Green_Lantern]

28. I wasn't really talking about the legality of guns but a general

Mentality that guns belong anywhere.

Double-illegal? No but we sure don't need magic powers to keep guns from getting on planes do we?

[Glassunion]

35. Again... I'm afraid that you are mistaken.

From the perspective of one who carries a firearm, I have never felt that guns belong everywhere. You seem to me to be building up a false argument just so you can tare it down. You are stating that we(gun owners) feel that guns belong everywhere, when indeed we do not.

Also, there are plenty of guns on airplanes. Just not being carried by passengers. You have Marshals, LEOs(of all types... police, park rangers, FBI, CIA, etc...) that of course can carry onto a flight. But you also have some civilians(pilots) who can carry a loaded firearm on a commercial flight. Personally, I do not have a problem checking my firearms and ammo to be placed into the belly of the plane for the duration of my trip. But you need to keep in mind that all of the people that I mentioned above are no more human than the average passenger. They do not posses super powers or are any less susceptible to the stress that all of us encounter. We are simply just trusting that they will not snap(as you seem to feel that this individual did), and start shooting.

Personally, I don't have any clue to what the shooter was going through, and we will never find out, as he is dead. All we can do is speculate on the given evidence from the news stories. I personally feel that it was premeditated because of the course of events that led up to the shooting. He woke up that morning, armed himself, traveled to a different state with the firearm(illegal), entered the hospital with the firearm(illegal) and killed 2 other people plus himself(illegal). But those are just my feelings which are complete speculation as are your feelings on why the shooting happened.

[Green_Lantern]

41. well you sound like a reasonable person but not everyone

Is as reasonable about this issue.

I don't think anyone just snaps and I'm guessing the stress of the entire situation built up to this.

I'm honestly baffled by this reaction and it worries me because my sister is an OB surgical nurse and has encountered angry family members before.

Hospitals are high stress areas.

[Glassunion]

45. Yes hospitals are high stress areas... However,

you cannot ask people to check their civil rights at the door due to some place being high stress. But on the other hand, a hospital is private property, they can ask that there be no firearms. They can take their own precautions to insure that no one is armed in the hospital and to carry into such a place would be trespassing. They absolutely have that right as you are a guest at the hospital and they can set the rules.

Police officers on the whole, are good honest law abiding citizens. Their job is just as stressful, however the majority of them handle that stress very well, while never violating our civil rights.

Recently, I was visiting an in-law who had to have major work done in a hospital. All went well, and he has been cured of his cancer. On the occasions that we drove into the city(Philly) I did indeed bring my firearm. It was not that I was scared of the people in the hospital that I felt I needed to be armed. Need did not come into it at all. I carry simply as a precaution, and I look at it no differently then carrying a fire extinguisher in my car at all times. I'm not afraid that I will burn to death, but I would like to have the tool for taking care of the job, on hand at the moment that I need it.

Anyway... Yes I did carry it into the hospital, as there is no law barring me from doing so. The first day that we visited was not a good one as there were complications with the procedure. Who would have thought removing someone's esophagus and stretching out their stomach would have been complicated? Yes, both my wife and I were under a great deal of stress during that first visit. But not once did I even think about my firearm while in the hospital. But, on the walk out of the hospital after dark, 3 blocks to the car I was aware of my situation and my firearm.

For me, need has nothing to do with it. Because if you choose not to, then the moment of need arises, it is already too late.

[shadowrider]

52. I dare you to show me one post, just one, and you can go back years

if you'd like, where someone on this forum said guns should be allowed everywhere.

IMHO, you're just projecting onto others what you think they feel to prop up your argument.

[Green_Lantern]

54. when did I say on this forum...I never said that

nt

[shadowrider]

51. Double secret illegal n/t

[Glassunion]

57. Cut the horseshit, son.

I've got their disciplinary files right here. Who dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the swim meet? Who delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner? Every Halloween, the trees are filled with underwear. Every spring, the toilets explode.

[proteus_lives]

32. Own. I don't think people should be allowed to carry firearms everywhere.

But the control freaks use incidents like this as an excuse.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

6. guns guns guns guns guns guns guns gu-

:nuke:

[SteveM]

14. snug snug snug snug snug snug snug sn-

[Kolesar]

8. I wonder if any of this family knew he was going to take a gun to the hospital

Another peculiar guy. Probably was horrible conversation

[proteus_lives]

9. What the posters above seem to forget.....

99.9 percent of people don't react to bad news this way.

I remember years when I got a phone call saying my grandfather had died. I just been target shooting that day. But yet, I didn't kill anyone. My father, who is an avid shooter and collector, distraught as he was by his father's death didn't shoot anyone.

Let's be adults and not avoid the real problems.

[Green_Lantern]

13. yeah but distraught people told devastating news WHILE carrying

A gun is a bad combination.

This is also why people don't tell someone devastating news while the person is driving.

The real problem is people thinking guns belong everywhere.

[SteveM]

15. "...problem is people thinking guns belong everywhere." Who advocates this?

[Green_Lantern]

20. well evidentally this guy did....I don't mean literally everywhere

But people who think that having concealed carrying of guns makes us safer.

[X_Digger]

23. Those are two separate assertions..

Which do you want to claim, eh? That someone somewhere thinks 'guns belong everywhere' or that someone somewhere thinks that having a concealed firearm makes 'us' safer?

All the people I know who carry do so for their own protection, not for some nebulous 'us'.

[Green_Lantern]

yes I think their really is a mentality of certain people that

They won't be told what to do and believe they are exempt from following rules of society.

I'm not saying it's everyone who carries.

[X_Digger]

37. People who tend to believe they are exempt from the rules of society..

.. are usually ineligible to carry a firearm legally.

That fact doesn't stop them from carrying, likely being criminals and all.

Your average CHL license holder is so clean they squeak when they walk.

Here's a graph I put together comparing the rate of conviction between CHL holders and the general public in Texas.



Notice that I compared apples to apples and oranges to oranges- X CHL convictions per 100,000 CHL holders and Y general public > 21yoa convictions per general public > 21 years old.

If we compare raw numbers of crimes in Texas, 0.26% of crimes are committed by CHL holders. (2007 - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm )

[Green_Lantern]

42. in this case the shooter had no criminal record but I recognize

Your point. I'm impressed by your research though.

[X_Digger]

44. True, all CHL holders aren't angels..

.. the number of crimes committed by CHL licensees is non-zero, but very, very small, compared to the general public, even when expressed as a rate against other CHL licensees.

[TheWraith]

29. You're less likely to be illegally shot by a person carrying concealed than by a police officer.

Just so that you know. And as noted, this guy was already committing about a half dozen crimes by carrying a firearm. Do you think that another law was going to stop him?

[Green_Lantern]

34. any evidence of it being more likely to get shot by police than

Criminals besides maybe your disdain for police?

Yeah another law requiring hospitals to scan visitors for guns or use metal detectors would've stopped him.

[TheWraith]

49. Who said you're more likely to get shot by police than criminals?

Certainly not me. In fact, a police officer is a third less likely per capita than the general population to commit a violent crime. However, people who carry concealed weapons are two thirds less likely, per capita, to commit a violent crime.

And yes, I'm sure that every hospital in America can afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars to accommodate an irrational fear based on one freak instance. Are you next going to demand metal detectors at post offices? How about theaters? Why not every building?

[Green_Lantern]

53. well if inner city schools can afford it surely hospitals can do it...

Secondly, picking and choosing which public places should or shouldn't have metal detectors isn't that illogical. If it was then I guess having them at airports and courthouses is meaningless unless every building has them.

How about we just start by having them in places where there's enough concern about safety that they have security teams.

[TheWraith]

56. Contrary to popular opinion, most inner city schools CAN'T afford it.

Just as most hospitals don't have "security teams." And they aren't required to do so in order to appease your paranoia about the one in a million chance that somebody there might have a gun and bad intentions.

[Green_Lantern]

58. I highy doubt most hospitals don't have security...

And it's not just in case someone there might have a gun. There are other more common issues such as parking issues and basic security issues.

Hospitals already take precautions for one in a million chance occurrences such as putting detection systems sounding alarms if a baby is removed from the OB floor.

By the way the hospital in question already has some metal detectors so evidently they are somewhat "paranoid."

[proteus_lives]

31. Separate issues.

[SteveM]

46. Thanks for your reply, but there is still a misconception....

about the purpose of concealed-carry. The purpose of concealed-carry is not to "make us safer." The purpose is for the individual carrying to act in self-defense should a threat in extremis occur. While there may be (and have been) opportunities for a concealed-carry citizen to act in order to save himself and others, the main purpose is self-defense, not social policy.

Tangentially, I have noticed that a number of "gun-free zone" signs (or their equivalent) have come down in my city of Austin, Texas. I suspect some local authorities have concluded that at best these signs do nothing to make anyone safe, and at worse advertise an unarmed pool of victims. But this is speculation, for now.

[Green_Lantern]

47. the signs alone don't make people safer...not without

Metal detectors.

[SteveM]

48. Yeah, but metal detectors? Wouldn't take many to keep me from going...

to that location.

[Green_Lantern]

50. what do you mean?

nt

[SteveM]

68. It's a matter of style and unwillingness to accept that level of scrutiny...

In courthouses/courtrooms I (and many 2A advocates) accept current detector/bun bans due to the quite volatile nature of trials (both civil and criminal), and due to the regular posting of armed guards, even at the courtroom level. I'll put up with metal detectors in schools (how valuable they are, I don't know; the high school I attended sprawled over several acres and had no fences), but this could be obviated by having at least a few armed, qualified adults present at all times, in the manner of the courtroom situations. Private places, I don't see it. A private concern certainly has the right to set out metal detectors, but I'll go elsewhere.

Metal detectors are valuable at airports where there is such a "hermetic" seal against intruders; in the check-in area, no. This is already a non-"gun-free zone" because those wishing to transport weapons must check them in. Where I live one needs no concealed-carry permit to go through this procedure. Same as it ever was since I could read. My beef is with the local public transit (bus) to the airport. These vehicles still calls for "No Guns." How can I used this service, even though the destination is the airport which is NOT "gun free" until you reach gate-concourse area? Now serving No. 22.

[Green_Lantern]

69. well I doubt most people would choose a hospital based on it..

Not having metal detectors.

I'm not sure but I bet most patients don't complain about "too much security" at a hospital.

[SteveM]

73. Never gave it much thought. I visited my nephew's wife this year after she gave birth...

at a hospital in Gainesville. No detectors, just a circuitous hallway and elevator ride. There was an armed guard near the entry, but that's it.

[X_Digger]

16. He was distraught before he got the news..

From the details in one of the other four threads on this subject, it's clear that this was premeditated. He carried in a state where his license wasn't valid, in a place where no concealed carry is allowed, and shot three people (including himself).

The chain of actions demonstrates that he didn't just 'snap', if that's what your insinuating. The idea of people who 'snap' is largely a myth. http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=24

[Green_Lantern]

19. no, according the story the guy was carrying the gun

And pulled it out and shot the surgeon right after being told his mother's condition.

What motive would he have had to do this besides anger over this news?

The gunman, 50-year-old Paul Warren Pardus, had been listening to the surgeon around midday when he "became emotionally distraught and reacted ... and was overwhelmed by the news of his mother's condition," Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III said. 

Pardus pulled a semiautomatic gun from his waistband and shot the doctor once in the abdomen, the commissioner said. The doctor is expected to survive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/john-hopkins-hospital-sho_n_719435.html

[X_Digger]

21. Read the baltimore sun article..

Quoting Euromutt:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x339701#339750

The article in the Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-shooting-hopkins-20100916,0,1885569.story ) says the guy had been "a fixture in the room since last week, after his 84-year-old mother, Jean Davis, was brought there for surgery related to cancer treatment." So he already knew his mother's condition was serious, and he'd probably been informed of the risks of the surgery beforehand. The bad news (reportedly that the surgery had resulted in her becoming paralyzed) almost certainly did not come unexpectedly.

[Green_Lantern]

26. it's hard to say...he could've also been in denial and thought..

The surgery would be the cure all.

"I guess because he thought my mom was suffering because the surgery wasn't successful and she probably wouldn't be able to walk again," Gibson said. "She was a dear, sweet lady. She just wanted to walk around like she did when she was younger."

I'm sure the stress of everything contributed to this though.

[X_Digger]

27. No doubt stress played a role..

.. but I doubt he thought his permit was valid in Maryland, and I doubt he missed the 'no guns' sign / metal detectors, especially since he'd been 'a fixture' there for a while.

[Euromutt]

55. That doesn't prove he didn't have an "if... then" plan

To compare, there was an incident in March quite near where I live where, during a marriage counseling session, a guy shot his ex-wife after she told him she wasn't going to come back to him (http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x303699). In that case, the guy didn't just happen to have the gun on him; he brought with the intention of using it to murder his wife if she didn't tell him she'd come back.

Similarly, I contend that Pardus brought the gun with the premeditated intent that if the surgeon gave him bad news, then he would kill the surgeon, his mother, and himself. I won't dispute that his motive was anger over the outcome of the surgery, but he didn't just happen to have the gun on him. The fact that he pulled the weapon "from his waistband" (according to Bealefeld) indicates he wasn't using a holster, and that in turn means he didn't carry regularly.

[Green_Lantern]

59. I'm not really sure if he intended to even kill the surgeon..

He only shot him in the abdomen. Also why would he have a ccw permit if he didn't regularly carry a gun?

[ManiacJoe]

63. In some states, having a CCW permit

makes purchasing a gun a lot quicker.

[cleanhippie]

67. Bingo.

since a background check must be completed to GET a CCW permit, there is no requirement to do it every time one want to purchase a firearm.

[Green_Lantern]

70. well then that means having a ccw license could have allowed this guy

To get a gun easier with a plan to shoot people at the hospital.

[cleanhippie]

75. Perhaps, but I think it to be most likely that if he had a CCW he already had a firearm

I think it would be a rarity that someone goes through the hoops to get a CCW but does not already own a sidearm, don't you think?

[PavePusher]

76. And unless your local PreCrime division is more effective than mine...

...I'm not sure you can stop things like that.

[ManiacJoe]

78. You seem to be assuming this was his first gun.

That would not be a safe assumption based on the ease-of-purchase reason for the CCW.

Having a CCW permit would not bypass the NICS check during a purchase.

[oneshooter]

79. It depends on the background check required to obtain a CCL.

Some states, such as Texas, have a very good background check. So good that a NCIS check is not needed. Just the License # written on the proper Federal form.
Last firearm I bought tool 10 minutes, fill out the form, show your CHL, and pay the bill.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

84. Pardus didn't stick around to see whether the shot had been fatal

According to the Baltimore Sun, he fired one shot at the surgeon and then ran into his mother's hospital room. Since he's dead, we'll never know what his precise intent was, but putting a bullet in someone other than in self-defense is generally taken to be a pretty good indication that your intent is lethal.

And lots of people who have CCW permits don't carry. In quite a few states, a valid CCW permit is a legally acceptable alternative for a state-level background check, thus allowing you to skip the waiting period while the check is conducted. And there are people who get a permit but then find it's too much hassle to actually carry the weapon all the time and they just slip out of the habit.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

90. Originally, way back when, I only got my CCW because it made transporting firearms/ammo easier.

In Ohio, a different se of rules applies to someone with a CCW when it comes to transporting firearms and such. Having a CCW makes it much easier to comply with the law when transporting them. But after awhile I ended up actually carrying a firearm with my CCW permit as well. But I'll bet MANY people that have permites to carry a concealed handgun don't use them. I personally know a few people that have permits and pretty much never carry.

[Callisto32]

40. I have been distraught, and told pretty bad news while carrying.

Granted, it didn't rise to this apparent level of bad news, but most people can handle even REALLY bad news without a multiple murder-suicide.

[Green_Lantern]

43. maybe, I think it depends on how stressed out the person

Already is.

[cleanhippie]

18. Hey you! Stop making sense right this minute.

No one wants to hear logical opinions sprinkled with facts.

[Green_Lantern]

22. an anecdotal story is "facts"? Anger while being armed seems logically

To be a bad combination like drinking and being armed.

[cleanhippie]

30. Is anyone disagreeing with that?

[proteus_lives]

33. I've been angry and armed.

Didn't kill anyone.

I think millions of stories are similar.

[Green_Lantern]

36. and I'm sure there are millions of stories of drunk people

Driving without hurting anyone and suicidal people owning guns and not shooting themselves.

[felix_numinous]

11. I always get searched entering JH

my purse emptied, ect. I cannot believe he got in wearing a gun. :wtf:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. No gun zone... that's exactly what the shooter was hoping for...

nobody to stop him.

[Green_Lantern]

38. that doesn't make sense...he wasn't some random shooter..

Choosing a hospital because it is a gun free zone. He chose the hospital because he was there as was the target of his anger.

[shadowrider]

60. And it was a "gun-free" zone ensuring he could fire at will n/t

[Green_Lantern]

61. don't hospitals have armed security guards?

The man shot and killed himself so why exactly would fear of armed people stop him even if guns were allowed?

Would the surgeon be carrying a gun?

[shadowrider]

62. HINT: It didn't take him hours, only seconds. NO armed response

by security guards could have stopped it.

[Green_Lantern]

65. you defeated your own point that he chose the hospital because

It was "gun free". As you said an armed response wouldn't be quick enough to stop this.

Why would a suicidal man fear armed people?

[shadowrider]

74. I never said armed response wouldn't have been quick enough

I said, in response to your question about security guards, that it happened too fast for a security guard to have stopped it.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Green_Lantern]

85. yes I get it but I still don't see why a suicidal guy chose the hospital

Because it's a gun free zone...Why would he?

[shadowrider]

87. Ummm, maybe because, no one was around and armed that could stop him

It's a "gun-free" zone remember.

[Green_Lantern]

89. he pulled the gun and shot the surgeon...as you said, it took seconds..

I guess you think the surgeon would be packing heat. Because who else was there to act that fast.

[shadowrider]

91. Look, you are not going to listen. The man pulled out a gun, shot 3 people

and had NO FEAR he'd be shot before he could complete his grusome mission. Why do you think people choose a daycare center? or a school? or a business?

GUN FREE.

[Green_Lantern]

93. he chose the hospital because the surgeon was there..

He shot the surgeon and ran to his mother's room and held her hostage for 2 hours....surely if armed police couldn't stop him then why could an armed civilian...

[shadowrider]

94. Sigh. Get some help. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

64. Very few hospitals have armed security.

The vast majority of hospitals do not have any security guards at all.

[Green_Lantern]

66. I really doubt that...I'm betting most have security...

It's silly to assume buildings with millions of dollars in drugs and equipment wouldn't have security.

[merqz]

71. really? I doubt it

I strongly suspect that this is untrue. You are claiming the "vast majority" of hospitals do not have security guards. Sorry, I'd need proof for that. I can't remember the last time I was at a hospital where they didn't have security. I used to work in emergency medical response and brought a lot of people to a lot of different hospitals. I don't recall ANY that did not have a security guard.

You are correct that at least a substantial portion do not have ARMED security.

[ManiacJoe]

77. It probably depends on your/my experience.

Most of the hospitals I have been to either as a patient or ambulance driver have been smaller ones located in not-large cities. If there were guards, it was probably only one and he was definitely had no firearm. This was also years back. (This is not to say that there were no cops at the place.)

Large hospitals in large cities may work may have security guards these days, but I have yet to see where any were armed.

[merqz]

80. Just because you did not see one does not mean there wasn't one

Many of the hospitals I went to were rural. Also, many hospitals contract with the local PD for security. I think that would qualify as them having security, armed security in fact. If they PAY for it, it's their security. Cops generally work there on an "off duty" / special detail basis, and are paid by the hospital, not the PD. University hospitals usually use some sort of security related to the University police forces. Harborview would be an example of this. Some contract with private companies like Wackenhut. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance etc. of many hospitals require them to have a security guard.

Again, I'm simply saying my experience is starkly different than yours, and I don't accept your claim about the "vast majority" without evidence.

[ManiacJoe]

81. Neither of our opinions are worth anything in the grand scheme of things.

What we need are numbers. I doubt anyone has collected any or published them if they were collected.

[merqz]

82. I didn't state my opinion as fact, the other did

all i said was that IN MY EXPERIENCE, what the OP said was NOT true, and thus I require evidence.

I did not say the opposite was true - that most hospitals HAVE a security guard. What i said was, IN MY EXPERIENCE (several dozen), most hospitals I have been to have a security guard - some armed, some not. Furthermore, NOT seeing a security guard is not proof there isn't one, whereas seeing one IS proof there is one.

[ManiacJoe]

83. I apologize for leaving out the phrase "IN MY EXPERIENCE".

My bad.

Now that we are back at "your experience and mine differ" and we both want evidence before changing our minds, now what?

[Green_Lantern]

86. in 2009 35% of security guard jobs were at hospitals or medical

Facilities according to the Bureau of Labor: 1,028,830 security guard jobs and 36,950 were at hospitals


http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes339032.htm

[shadowrider]

88. Ok, now, how many of those security guards are armed (Meaning - carrying guns)?

Security is one thing. Being able to stop a shooter is quite another.

[Green_Lantern]

92. yeah but even allowing people to be armed in hospitals

Wouldn't have stopped this...it happened too quick and he was suicidal.

[PavePusher]

95. Ummm... I think your numbers and percentages are off... n/t

[merqz]

72. Some do . Some don't

Many hospitals have guards who carry either (any of the following) pepper spray, tasers, batons, etc. If by armed, you mean FIREARMS (which is what most people mean by armed), a substantial %age of hospitals do not allow their security to be armed with a firearm.